Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Anthropology

shraby

(21,946 posts)

6. Yup, Tom, not Tim. Sorry bout that.

Reply to era veteran (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:20 PM

Dec 2011

There is plenty of evidence that Clovis wasn't first. They made such stringent requirements for proof of occupation (point lodged in animal ribs) that the proof just couldn't be met.
It's been some time since I read about the Chile site and I couldn't remember exactly where it was.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where is everyone? Anybody read the Nov. 2011 Scientific American that destroys Clovis First? [View all] csziggy Dec 2011 OP

Interesting Theory Possumpoint Dec 2011 #1

Hmm, maybe some supporting evidence. Yo_Mama Mar 2012 #11

Digs in South America have shown it was inhabited much earlier than shraby Dec 2011 #2

I believe you meant Tom Dillehay & Chile. era veteran Dec 2011 #5

Yup, Tom, not Tim. Sorry bout that. shraby Dec 2011 #6

I had Dillehay for a class right after he found it. Fascinating era veteran Dec 2011 #9

You lucky stiff! shraby Dec 2011 #10

I have a theory too. Look at a marybourg Dec 2011 #3

Clovis-first has been dead for a while. Also, IMO... Odin2005 Dec 2011 #4

What about the obviously Negroid type heads found in shraby Dec 2011 #7

The Olmec heads? They don't look Sub-Saharan African to me. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #8

The Olmec heads are stylized... a la izquierda Mar 2012 #12